Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

[thesightless]

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

Do you really think Iran wants to attack isreal?

abso-fucking-lutely, but they are waiting for the hamas lead government to do something so they can act as a defender, just as america does. and frankly, there are a few hundred million people from the northern coast of africa to pakistan and indonesia that would be extremely happy about it.

[Xessex]

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

Well yeah but there has to be something in it. You not just gonna attack a small-ass country with like zero importance for fun. Of course lots of people from all over the globe would wish to see Israel collapse, but quite frankly only the direct surrounding countries might have a firm wish that could once lead to a war.

I wouldn't deny however that they would support the Hamas. That could well be the case. Could be they make secret weapon deliviries to the Hamas (if they havent been doing that for the past decades already). But really attack them....nah dont think so.

Attacking Israel could well lead to world-war and what is their to gain in Israel. It would be more thinkable they might ever invade Iraq and Kuwait with the weapons they have. Iraq is also into the direction of Saoedi Arabia where people live with similar thoughts as in Iran. Why go westwards to attack a tiny spot if you could move southwards to really try to form that one big muslim coalition.

[davetlv]

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

And one more thing: have you ever thought about the nuclear power of Israel. Israel wasn't allowed just as Iran to enrich uranium cause of that non-proliferation act (do i spell that right). But Israel has set up nuclear facilities (in secrecy) anyway and of course not only to supply the country with electricity. The guy who filmed in that facility and sold the images to a british newspaper has been locked away....


But hey who cares that Israel did that in the past. Israel was/is a small brother of the USA so why bother. Isn't that a bit measuring with two measures.

Nice to have you aborad Xessex - fresh meat is always good inthe politics forum

Now lets get down to business shall we. . .

• If Israel has got nuclear weapons she got them PRIOR to the creation of the NPT (which by the way was in 1968 )
• The country most to blame for giving, or not giving , Israel these facilities was actually France, or maybe it wasnt. . . .
• Vanunu is no longer in prison, although he is still monitored - after all he is traitor to his country.
• Israel has NEVER been a signatory to the NPT (unlike Iran who still are) - (btw there are various threads here about this exact issue so look them up to see my views before flamming me )

What i'm all saying with this Superdave...do your homework first before you listen to some stupid blown-up statements by a nutcase.

Sir, or madam, I would encourage you to do as you preach.

The lunatic masquarding as President of Iran has stated on more than one occasion that my country should be wiped off the map. Now they claim to have the ability to enrich uranium. And you think we should not take him seriously?

[davetlv]

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

Why go westwards to attack a tiny spot if you could move southwards to really try to form that one big muslim coalition.

What better way for uniting the Arab/Muslim world and placing yourself as their leader than by destroying the Jewish state. Its not rocket science old chap. . . or maybe it is

[Xessex]

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

What better way for uniting the Arab/Muslim world and placing yourself as their leader than by destroying the Jewish state. Its not rocket science old chap. . . or maybe it is

Yeah but that would mean war with the US as well. I think from Iran's point of perspective seen it would be more effective to attack the US in Iraq than Israel.

Although if you would use 'Afghanistan' as an example it is thinkable to attack a country just to gain some sympathy. That i'll have to give you.

[elliotpa]

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

I think the Iranian nut-bags comments on Isreal were just a cynical attempt to endear himself with the population, that kind of stuff probably goes down well with your average Tehran dweller.

The fact is that he wouldn't have the balls to nuke anybody, let alone Isreal cause he knows the country currently called Iran would become a giant fireball.

The main risk with states like Iran going nuclear is the serious nut-jobs taking over the asylum, how real a risk that is I dont know. What I do know is that India and Pakistan both have nuclear capability, have their own share of nut-jobs, and are pointing guns at each other in Kashmir as I write this. There isnt any oil though so I very much doubt there is a US invasion likely any time soon.

[Xessex]

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

Nice to have you aborad Xessex - fresh meat is always good inthe politics forum

Now lets get down to business shall we. . .

• If Israel has got nuclear weapons she got them PRIOR to the creation of the NPT (which by the way was in 1968 )
• The country most to blame for giving, or not giving , Israel these facilities was actually France, or maybe it wasnt. . . .
• Vanunu is no longer in prison, although he is still monitored - after all he is traitor to his country.
• Israel has NEVER been a signatory to the NPT (unlike Iran who still are) - (btw there are various threads here about this exact issue so look them up to see my views before flamming me )

Well hello to you too. I'm delightful to finally participate in some political forum.

Owkay i'm first gonna admit i never done any homework. Usually i just remember loose data which on certain times i can put together to form a sort of image of what is happening, to make an analysis of my own. I normally dont need Michael Moore to do that for me .

So on certain points i can always be somewhat wrong. Forgive me then about not signing the NPT. I shouldn't have mentioned it anyways cause such acts usually have only symbolic meaning and even more only a limited time-period in which it is being lived by.

And about the French, well they are like the mild western version of Iran. If they can piss people of (with things they have done themselves just as well) they'l just do it. But hey they are the French :P

Doesn't leave out of the question that it has been allowed by the world of Israel to become a true nuclear force. And thats why i find the whole discussions about nuclear facilities etc a bit measuring with two measures. If countries havent signed that act it's fine they do get nuclear power (as long as they are on our side) and if somebody did sign it woehoe all hell breaks loose.

To get back to the French then... what about their nuclear tests on that Atol in the pacific. When like Pakistan, China, India, North Korea would even consider this the whole world seems to put pressure on those countries to go go through with it (while they in secrecy do it probably anywayzs). But when they French do it it only leads to large protest by people who care about the environment, so environmental activists which have very little influence on world scale.

It's just measuring with two measures. Not that i'm saying to offer Iran all the space to make nuclear boms. No of curse not, but there might be other ways to make sure they only get a very limited amount of nuclear boms or stall it that it costs decades to make a good bomb, thus making it so expensive that they might not push it through.

[davetlv]

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

Doesn't leave out of the question that it has been allowed by the world of Israel to become a true nuclear force. And thats why i find the whole discussions about nuclear facilities etc a bit measuring with two measures. If countries havent signed that act it's fine they do get nuclear power (as long as they are on our side) and if somebody did sign it woehoe all hell breaks loose.

For countries that have signed the NPT they can not share that technology with anyone else.

Israel developed, if indeed we have them, nuclear programme in the 50's prior to the NPT.

The issue should be more about ensuring that EVERY nation is a signatory, and that the IAEA has real teeth to enforce the act.

As it stands, the IAEA is a waste of space.

[superdave]

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

I'm not endorsing nuclear strikes against Iran, but we should definitely do airstrikes to stop them from expanding their nuclear capabilities. The President of Iran knows the U.S. is stretched thin in Iraq with troops and the Iraq war isn't popular in America. That said, the Iranian President will push forward with nuclear technology until he's attacked.

Saddam was years away from WMD's and he was a dictator who wouldn't let the weapons inspectors do their jobs. Consider that fact and I would think the Iranian president would put his country and people at risk to defy the rest of the world.

At this point, I have very little faith in the U.N. or Russia to solve this Iranian nuclear problem. And here's the thing, the rest of the world doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons either, but no one will do anything about it.

And throw this information to ignite the fire further, both Presidents of Iran and the U.S. are highly religious people who believe they have a role in end times.

[elliotpa]

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

Its worth remebering that having a nuclear power station is a long way off having a nuclear bomb. It always strikes me as hypocritical for nations with these facilities to tell other nations they cant have them. In the same way that european nations tell brazil not to chop the forest. We replaced ours with grazing land years ago.

[thesightless]

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

wow it only took 3 days.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/14/iran.israel.reut/index.html

[davetlv]

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

wow it only took 3 days.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...eut/index.html

So tell me again why the west have nothing to fear from this fanatical madman having access to enriched uranium

[superdave]

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

Its worth remebering that having a nuclear power station is a long way off having a nuclear bomb. It always strikes me as hypocritical for nations with these facilities to tell other nations they cant have them. In the same way that european nations tell brazil not to chop the forest. We replaced ours with grazing land years ago.

The point is that Iran is on the path to have the ability to have a nuclear bomb. It isn't hypocritical to not want everyone armed with such a destructive weapon. To most people, it makes common sense. You probably would agree that it's not a good idea for everyone in the world to walk around with a gun or sidearm. Eventually someone will get shot. Plus, I don't hear the nations with nuclear bombs threatening others.

[superdave]

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

wow it only took 3 days.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...eut/index.html

I love the press say he's becoming moderate because Israel's existence is a threat to Islamic countries vs. a hard line approach of we'll wipe you out.

Both of them sound very threatening to me. The press needs to quit giving these terrorist Islamic countries passes on their unacceptable behavior. Quit making excuses for evil fuckers.

[toasty]

Re: Bush planning nuclear strikes on Iran's nucleur sites?

You probably would agree that it's not a good idea for everyone in the world to walk around with a gun or sidearm.

You would think so, and I would think so, and most every person with more than a dozen functioning brain cells would think so, but Missouri passed a law not too long ago to allow people to carry concealed weapons around with them. Boy, do I feel like I live in a backward state at times. Thank God I've chosen one of the oases of rational thought to live in...